Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Employment lawCase lawDismissalUnfair dismissal

Heat of the moment resignation plea is rejected – Case of the week: Ali v Birmingham City Council

by Bob Cordran 20 Jan 2009
by Bob Cordran 20 Jan 2009

Ali v Birmingham City Council

FACTS Mr Ali was employed by Birmingham City Council. On 25 April 2007 he handed in a letter of resignation due to “personal circumstances”. His evidence was that he was “under pressure, stressed out and couldn’t think straight and was not fully aware of what [he] was doing at the time”.

On advice from the council’s HR department, Ali’s manager offered him a cooling-off period. She asked him if he wanted to reconsider, but he reaffirmed his decision to resign. The manager left him for 20 minutes to reconsider. He then became upset and so was given a further 10 minutes. Ali then confirmed his decision to resign with immediate effect, which his manager accepted.

Two days later, he called the council, but was told that he had no automatic right to return. On Sunday 29 April, he e-mailed his manager saying he wished to return. On 4 May he was told “a decision has been made not to reinstate your contract and your resignation therefore still stands”.

DECISION Ali brought a claim for unfair dismissal. The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear his claim as he had resigned rather than being dismissed. Ali appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

In general, an employer is entitled to treat unambiguous words of resignation as being effective. However, in Southern v Franks Charlesly, the Court of Appeal identified three ‘special circumstances’ in which an otherwise clear and unambiguous resignation should not be relied on. These were “an immature employee, a decision taken in the heat of the moment [and] an employee being jostled into a decision by the employer”. Where such special circumstances exist, “a reasonable period of time should be allowed to lapse and if circumstances arise during that period which put the employer on notice that further enquiry is desirable to see whether the resignation was really intended and can be properly assumed, then such enquiry is ignored at the employer’s risk”. At the EAT in Kwik-Fit (GB) Limited v Lineham, it was said that the appropriate period for the employee to change his mind was “likely to be a day or two”.

In any case, the EAT held that Ali’s actions did not fit within these ‘special circumstances’ identified in Southern. Ali had confirmed his wish to resign after 30 minutes’ reflection and so did not resign in the heat of the moment, a view which was supported by not asking for his resignation to be reconsidered until four days later. Even if special circumstances had applied, the four-day delay before notifying the council that he had changed his mind would have been too long.

IMPLICATIONS The case serves as a useful reminder than, in certain limited circumstances, an employer should investigate further before accepting an apparently straightforward resignation. Here, a 30-minute period of reflection was enough to establish that the decision was not taken in the heat of the moment. Where, however, a resignation is made in the heat of the moment, the employee may be able to change their mind, if they do so quickly, and that will usually mean within a day or two.

Bob Cordran, partner, Thomas Eggar

Avatar
Bob Cordran

previous post
Race discrimination by job agencies – legal Q and A
next post
British Army in need of bigger breaks and bigger brigades, says top general

You may also like

Whistleblowing lawyer awarded £423k by Foreign Office

4 Jul 2022

Employment law changes for 2022 and beyond: update...

1 Jul 2022

Christian doctor loses transgender pronoun case, but beliefs...

29 Jun 2022

Long Covid: what tribunal’s disability ruling means for...

23 Jun 2022

Whistleblowing nurse awarded £462k for unfair dismissal

15 Jun 2022

Oxford study highlights best gig economy firms to...

9 Jun 2022

Tesco appeal against fire and rehire ban to...

8 Jun 2022

Bank holidays: six things employers need to know

5 Jun 2022

Frewer v Google: How it’s getting harder to...

30 May 2022

P&O Ferries boss denies reputational damage after mass...

27 May 2022
  • NSPCC revamps its learning strategy with child wellbeing at its heart PROMOTED | The NSPCC’s mission is to prevent abuse and neglect...Read more
  • Diversity versus inclusion: Why the difference matters PROMOTED | It’s possible for an environment to be diverse, but not inclusive...Read more
  • Five steps for organisations across the globe to become more skills-driven PROMOTED | The shift in the world of work has been felt across the globe...Read more
  • The future of workforce development PROMOTED | Northumbria University and partners share insight...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2022

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2022 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+